Dreaming in 9mm

For various reasons, over the past several years I wanted a 9mm pistol for target shooting.  It would not be for competition, as I've already got the appropriate guns for that in 22, 38, and 45.  I guess it would be mostly to shoot for enjoyment, especially as how 9mm ammo is so readily available for good prices.  I also wanted a "Browning High Power", as I fell in love with it having seen one my range friend owns.
  
I already bought the Springfield SA-35 which is a High Power clone, shoots 9mm, and seems to offer enough precision for me, although it was never intended for target shooting.  I already wanted one, but this video pushed me over the edge:


I would like to be able to do things like what I did a lifetime ago, shooting at bowling pins, targets, steel plates, whatever.  I think the SA-35 is fine for all that, but probably nowheres close to precise enough for Bullseye shooting.  Heck, it doesn't even have adjustable sights, not that this slowed down Hickok45.

Moving on, I ALSO considered buying a high quality 9mm 1911.  My brother owns a Dan Wesson PM-9, and I'd love to buy one of them - new, they now cost $1,600 or so, but as I was told, if I want 50-yard precision, it would ALSO need lots of TLC from a gunsmith most likely including a precision barrel.

I also considered the Springfield 9mm Target:  
https://www.springfield-armory.com/1911-series-handguns/1911-trp-handguns/1911-loaded-target-9mm-handgun-stainless-ca-compliant/

They are apparently available for $1,000 or so, but they are hard to find - not sure if they are still in production.
I suspect there are other companies that make a similar gun, but I'm getting to really appreciate Springfield lately.


Most of you guys will understand - it's like "an itch" and needs scratching.  
I ain't got a wife tho shoot my ideas down, boom!!!!

I guess I ought to put up a WTB post in the Classified forum, but I'm still debating with myself whether I really ought to buy one.  It would also need some attention from a gunsmith if I want it to be capable of 50-yard precision, but that could always be postponed for a year, or longer.  If I'm going to compete, and if I really want precision, I've already got a Dave Salyer 45 Springfield, and a Les Baer Premiere II.  

I guess I'm just dreaming out loud.  I was going to post something like this several weeks ago, but decided not to bother anyone.

I'll ask anyway - would something like the Dan Wesson or Springfield be a worthwhile gun to own if I have no plans to compete with it?
Feel free to tell me what you really think, even if it's to bust my "balloon".

Assuming your age in your bio is correct, I would say life is short, and to go for it.

I have loved shooting accurate 9mm handguns. I have had a couple (few) of S&W PPC9s and I have Custom Springfield Distinguished 1911 with 6 inch barrel. That is the most fun 9mm money can buy in my opinion. Nothing like that long slow push of a 6inch 1911 in 9mm.

My favorite 9mm is a 1911 longslide. Extra weight gets rid of the snappiness of factory ammunition. Much more forgiving to shoot at 50 yds.
But I’ve never met a 9 I’ve liked better than a 38 special or 45 1911
Jon

I have a Browning from the early 1980s and it shoots well. Also a worked 1911 and it shoots very well, as does the Sig P-210 target. My 1911 is a Springfield made into a 9mm, not an original 9 target gun. The Sig is stock out of the box. Form having seen and shot the newer Springfield, think you will do well with the price, before you even need to upgrade and have work done.
Each however have their positives and negatives. Read a little, ask a lot. Good luck!

Pinetree wrote:Assuming your age in your bio is correct, I would say life is short, and to go for it.

I was hatched 78 years ago.   :-)

I agree with you.
It took no time at all to decide to buy the SA-35, but it took forever to find a late model gun that I wanted.

Not sure where to get the other guns you guys mentioned.  The only "real" choices I found so far are the Dan Wesson and the Springfield.

If it was my I’d look at the CZ-75 series.  Seriously.

Irons or dot? For irons I agree CZ-75 custom stuff is hard to beat, I've got a Accushadow and had an Accushadow 2 but preferred the original. Both new and old P210's are awesome. 

For a dot 9mm it's gonna be real hard to beat a 1911. Need to email Jon about a long slide lol, haven't got a 9mm 1911 or a long slide.

I bought a 9 mm SA Range Office last Christmas, and spent the winter doing my first "rebuild". When the weather gets better I'll do some testing to see what it's capable of at 50 yards. I'm leaving it set up with irons for now, but will likely send it away to make it optics ready at some point. It's good for the money. I have owned the new Sig P210A Target and I own a CZ SP-01 Tactical. What's hard about shooting these pistols, at least for me, is the level of skill required to manage the (pivoting) trigger in a fat double-stack frame. When you cock a DA/SA CZ, the trigger is far back, almost touching the frame. I guess you could get a set of custom grips and putty and make it fit, install a trigger shoe, etc. CZs are all 1:10 barrels so you can load up 147 gr bullets (XTPs) subsonic and they are accurate. My SP-01 is sloppy in the bushing and the upper barrel lugs, but for what it is used for now (my 85 yo Dad uses it for plate shoots), it's fine. I installed the CGW performance package and that was a good upgrade (but expensive). A SA CZ would be a better bet, however, be ready for a trigger pull under 2.5# and no easy way to increase it, if that matters to you.

I just purchased a 210 Target model. It’s very accurate, seems to like heavier bullets, adjustable sights, and great trigger out of the box.

You could also go with a full custom build. Clark Custom Guns built me a 1911 in 9mm that holds 1in groups at 50 yards. Comfortable to shoot for me and is my go to for CF.

I just ordered my P210target. I also felt the itch .  Buds has them .

I used to have a Springfield Range Officer in 9mm. The slide to frame fit got really worn out after just 7000 rounds. It went from being match ready accurate to barely being able to hit the target. I'd go with a custom built 9mm 1911 if I were to do it over again. A stock SARO isn't accurate enough for me to be interesting to me.

I have not shot the SA-35. The one tested in American Rifleman was not a Bullseye pistol. I have three 9mm that are Bullseye accurate. In order of how they shoot in my hands.
1. CZ Shadow 1 SA. Has an 10x barrel bushing that tightened it up. But I really like the FO front sight.
2. Tanfoglio Match Elite. Has a set of Nill grips and usually scores as well as the Shadow. Trigger and grips are better.. front sight is not.
3. Sig P210A Target. Should be the best of the three. Think it is the shape of the SA Trigger. Irritates tip of my index finger after 50 rounds or so. In a vise should outshoot the other two.
I have had a couple 9mm 1911. Shot them well. But the three listed above are more accurate than the ones I had.
As ALWAYS, sights and trigger are huge. Crappy sights, bad triggers can ruin a guns performance.
I am amazed at the older pistols the the BE teams competed with. Terrible sights, 6 pound triggers.

And generally the scores reflected it.  Sure the record was set then, but I think there are more shooters shooting above 2620 than there were in thos “halcyon” days.

Wobbley wrote:And generally the scores reflected it.  Sure the record was set then, but I think there are more shooters shooting above 2620 than there were in thos “halcyon” days.

If I’m understanding this correctly, you think more shooters now are above 2620 presently?
Please clarify for me?
Jon

As a percentage of the field, probably. In nominal terms, probably not.

Well, looking at the 1979 and 2021 Perry results, there were 5 at 2620 or above and in 1979 there were 3.

I would never base averages on Camp Perry. Too many crappy factors affecting typical scores. On Army All Reserve pistol team alone we had probably over 40 2650 masters. I remember sitting down with Lozoya one time and we tried counting all the 2650 shooters that were still shooting. It was a very high number.
In the mid 70’s Steve Reiter and Mel Makin were both averaging 2660’s. They tried 38 special for CF aggregate. Their averages dropped. It’s because they both shot the 45 so well the smaller caliber was a disadvantage.
Anyways, Perry is horrible place to rate a typically good shooter. The great shooters have shined there, that’s for sure.
Jon

Is that because of how windy it is there?

CO1Mtn wrote:Is that because of how windy it is there?

At Perry you shoot the 2700 over three days. It could be perfect weather for one day, hot with no wind the next, and wind and heavy rain the following day. The firing line at Perry is not covered, the ground not level(has the potential to be muddy). Shooting can and will be paused for boats in the impact area or eagles. You also have quite the distance to haul your equipment to get to the firing line. The conditions in general are more demanding and it is the biggest match of the year. Toss all that in a bucket, add some excuses to taste and that is why people generally do not score as well at Perry.

I'm still looking for a 9mm 1911.  I'm mostly finding what I would call "rumors", not facts.

On my call to Springfield yesterday, I asked the tech support person about the Springfield 1911 Loaded Target.
[url=https://www.springfield-armory.com/1911-series-handguns/1911-trp-handguns/1911-loaded-target-9mm-handgun-stainless-ca-compliant/]Springfield 1911 Loaded Target[/url]
He told me that they can't keep these guns in stock - it's legal in California, and that's where a lot of them are going.
I found a few "reviews" on the internet, but they were worthless.  It's probably a fine gun to buy now, and send to Dave Salyer eventually for a Kart barrel and other mods - but Dave prefers not to work on "stainless steel guns".  This gun is very much on my to-consider list, and it's very reasonably priced, soft of like the discontinued Range Officer.

In two weeks I'll get to try my brother's Dan Wesson PM9.  Unfortunately, the front sight is more for action shooting than bullseye.
Dan Wesson PM9
It's around $1600, and while it gets excellent reviews, I wonder how appropriate it would be for bullseye.
On the other hand, I'm buying it just to enjoy shooting it, not to compete.  It may be perfect for me.

Kimber makes, or made, a 9mm 1911, but the Springfield makes more sense to me.

Big Name guns are out - $3000+ is more than I plan to spend.

I got to shoot a 9mm CZ Tactical Sports yesterday - in many ways, it was great.  It's a heavy gun, that was very stable in my hands, had a useful thumb-rest (first time I've tried one) and it shot very well.  Beautifully made, too, but the non-adjustable sights would be a nightmare, and I really don't see myself buying anything other than a 1911 with adjustable sights.

I might give up on the whole  idea, as I've already got my 9mm Hi-Power Clone.  Or, I might just go ahead with the PM9.  I will know more once I shoot my brother's gun.

Go for a tricked out RO or a plain Jane. You can tinker with them like Mr. Potato Head.
Same pistol both pictures.

I have tried a SA RO, Tanfoglio Stock3, CZ75 PCR, Glock 34, Sam's NM Beretta, Sig M17, Staccato P... All shot like crap at 50yds unless your using match ammo and 9mm is picky to reload for. .45 is much more tolerant for reloading, and larger holes matter for the overlay. 9mm is fun to play with but always go back to the tried and true .45. If you have a TS, can try a frame mounted mini dot on it to see if it helps, if anything at least it's adjustable...

Well, a 9mm 1911 can be made to perform at a very high level - but not cheaply.  Here's one of the test targets from my Accuracy X built by Steve Huff in 2018.  Just wish that I could still shoot well enough to deserve owning it. It also has several "Multi-Sight" add-ons.  Eventually, this gun will either be sold or donated as a prize at Camp Perry.  Performance at 50 yards is equally impressive.